RexTalionis:The kicker is that once the conservatives started bellyaching, Guns & Ammo immediately fired Metcalf and begged for forgiveness.

That's disappointing.One of their guys writes a completely reasonable piece advocating gun safety and he gets canned.From their page:In publishing Metcalf's column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine - nor, most important, "Guns & Ammo"'s. It is very clear to me that they don't reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with "Guns & Ammo" has officially ended.

So the head editor KNEW what the story was about. He approved the damn thing even though he doesn't agree with it. And then fires the guy who wrote the article? Talk about a a classless coward.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

Now now.... among OECD countries Mexico is still worse for gun deaths. Say what you will about gun owners in this country, but be sure to remember that they're slightly less violent than bloodthirsty drug cartels embroiled in open war with one another and the military...

dittybopper:There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block. There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

a. Smith and Wesson. Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products. Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes. So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo. Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it. Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c. The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year. Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's. People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up. Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out. The show had to be cancelled.

You don't fark with gun owners like that if your business caters to those very same gun owners. The Fudds are too few in number, and dying out, to carry you forward.

Lt. Cheese Weasel:Take a trip to Chicago or Detroit and see if your strawman makes it out alive. You know, for research.

To which strawman are you referring? Exposing children to lead diminishes the development of the prefrontal cortex, the center of the brain that tempers the "go crazy" in people normally.

skozlaw:Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies." There is nothing inherently wrong, dangerous, nor anti-educational to include firearms instruction in schools. People are injured and killed because they don't know sh*t about firearms and, especially in the case of kids, pick them up and play with them. Learning how to use a firearm doesn't make you violent nor predispose you to gun crime... I should know I taught hundreds of kids firearms safety and marksmanship, spent years in the military and I don't even own any firearms.

There are firearms in a very large portion of US households. A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.

All things can be and are regulated, including guns. Anyone who wants a society where everyone, and I mean everyone can get firearms without any limitation at all is deeply suicidal.

Louisiana passed a state constitutional amendment making gun ownership a fundamental right of all people. Now the felons are suing the state for full access to guns.

There is an insanity about this current generation of gun people which leads to irrational results. Their inability to consider the consequences of their actions leads to death. And literally, it leads to death.

Please don't, just please, please don't. Every farking time, someone has to bring that up. Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on? We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

"OK, so that's $1600 for the Bushmaster PX45, $875 for 5 jumbo-sized boxes of ammunition, $500 for the holographic sights, $50 each for the two extended quick-change mag, $400 for the reinforced adjustable stock, $30 for the shoulder sling, $300 for the hardsided, cloth-lined case, $100 for the cleaning kit, $200 for the polymer handguard, $50 for the custom over-sized rubber grip, $35 for the flashlight mount kit, $100 for the quick-collapsible tripod, and....the Rat-L-Trap....that comes to....$4,364.76 with tax."

"Excellent, please put it on my Discover Card!"

"Oh, and there's also a $50 training course fee if you have not already taken it."

The NRA is a lobbying group for the gun manufacturing industry. While what they should be doing is encouraging safe and responsible gun ownership, they've realized over the last few decades that if they instead concentrate their efforts into "ZOMG Big Gumbint iz coming for yur gunz!", it leads to their funders (gun makers) making more money.

Wild, knee-jerk, reactionary commentary on Facebook about a political wedge issue that many people get the entirety of their "knowledge" about through forwarded emails and misleading internet infographics? Say it ain't so! Next they'll be saying that the president was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who is determined to destroy this country, or that the government is putting chemicals in jet exhaust to exert mind control over the population, or that Obama is controlling the weather with HAARP, or that natural disasters are God's wrath over gay marriage.

This just in: There are some really, REALLY stupid, loud and ignorant people out there. They like to bleat their stupid, loud and ignorant opinions on the internet. Film at 11.

factoryconnection:We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies."

No, we don't. There is no "basketball" class as part of any school's curriculum anywhere in this country. If you want to try and convince people that gun safety should be part of a class aimed at teaching good physical activity habits along side those things be my guest, but don't make stupid shiat up in the interim.

Yes, there is, it's a goddamn hobby and hobbies aren't curricular. There is no debate about this. No hobby has been, is or should be given status alongside core curriculum, your hobby, no matter what it is, is not an exception.

factoryconnection:A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.

So offer it as part of health, though I'd be surprised if a number of schools don't already.

Or, you know... change the law so that idiots who leave their guns laying around in a living room full of children can't own guns anymore.

But no... no... can't do that.. much better to put the responsibility on third graders than the adults... or.. you know.. I don't... do both... nah... that makes waaaay too much sense and we all know that means its dead in the water from the gun "advocates" side.

skozlaw:Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive. You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.

It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Please don't, just please, please don't. Every farking time, someone has to bring that up. Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on? We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century. Then it meant "well stocked". So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia. Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets. What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.

dittybopper:There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block. There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

a. Smith and Wesson. Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products. Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes. So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo. Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it. Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c. The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year. Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's. People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up. Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out. The show had to be cancelled.

d. Recoil Magazine. While reviewing a new, full-auto capable something-or-other awhile back, the then-editor dared to utter "No one needs this gun" somewhere in the article. That was it. What came next was truly horrifying. The nuts came out in force, threatening to boycott not only the magazine but their advertisers as well. At my last stunned count, some 40-50% of advertisers had pulled out. The offending editor was subsequently canned, and waves of apologies followed.

Facetious_Speciest:I am completely fine with requiring proficiency training/testing for anyone who wants to carry/utilise a firearm off their own property.

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property? I'm down with that.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

Devo:skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive. You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.

And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths. Just because you pass a drivers test doesn't mean you will drive safely. And the same would apply to gun training.

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.

In other words, legal to the end of your property without a license. I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Two points: As a politically liberal gun owner, the comments on articles like that make me hate many other gun owners.Secondly, I was an Infantryman in the Army, do non-gun owners believe that combat arms veterans such as myself should be exempt from compulsory firearms training laws? As I've already been trained by the government in proper gun safety.Just curious as to what others think about that.

skozlaw:Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!

Did anyone ever think these people were reasonable? By and large these are the same people who flipped shiat in the 90s when the government started mandating all guns be sold with trigger locks. The friggin things cost under $5 and didn't alter the use or construction of the weapons in any way.

sprawl15:simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

[Total participants in automobile-related transportation] and [total time spent engaged in activity throughout lifetime] and [total deaths related to automobiles] compared to [total participants in fire-arm usage and ownership] and [total amount of time spent using firearm] and [deaths as a result of firearm]

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Random thought: don't shoot up your own property in ways that endanger others. That's already the way it is.

Oh I won't shoot up my own property. . . .

now, if I just so happen to be near the edge of my property and see a couple of elk I'd like to plug for SKGs, or if I drink a little too much Kentucky Bourbon and mistake that owl on my neighbor's roof for an alien, well, I'm still on my property but I ain't shooting it up, now, am I?

Please don't, just please, please don't. Every farking time, someone has to bring that up. Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on? We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century. Then it meant "well stocked". So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia. Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets. What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.

I wasn't attacking the second amendment. I love the second amendment. Just curious about the "well regulated" angle. I guess the 9th covers it.

I just finished reading Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence and there's a lot in there about Washington's trouble with the militias. Its based on letters between the actual participants, and its clear from his writing that Washington had trouble with his regular army: they were the bottom rung of society, people with no skills and no prospects. But, as bad as they were, the militias were much worse, and Washington put them in combat only as a last resort because 1: they'd just run away at the first sign of a fight, and 2: a large percentage of them showed up without any weapons.

The idea that some local farmers and tradesmen armed with just muskets bested the British army is a fabrication easily debunked by reading accounts of those actually involved, and nothing but political spin started by the newspapers eager to promote independence. So, when Washington wrote letters to congress about the militia, its pretty clear he is instructing congress to make sure that the resolutions being sent to the states asking for troops includes the requirement that they bring along their own guns and not spears.